SURINDER SARUP, J.—This order/judgment will dispose of CMP(M) No. 658/97, CMP(M) No. 659/97 and also as a consequence thereof, R.S.A. No. 142/93.

2. The first application has been filed by the plaintiffs-appellants under Order 22, Rules 4 and 9 read with Section 151, C.P.C. for setting aside the abatement, if any, and for bringing on record the legal representatives of Lachhman/respondent No. 2 who has died on 18.6.1993. The second application is under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the other application for setting aside the abatement.

3. In order to appreciate the point involved for consideration, it would be necessary to refer to some facts concerning the main appeal.

4. The plaintiffs-appellants had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering with the court-yard (Sehan) of the plaintiffs-appellants shown as ABCD and the structure (Taur) shown as CDEFG in the site plan attached with the plaint, which according to the plaintiffs-appellants is in their ownership and possession. They also prayed for possession of the suit land by way of demolition of the verandah and a bathroom allegedly cons